[antiRepublicrat]

Yep, the recommended configuration for '95 was a 486 DX/66 with 8MB of RAM.

You described exactly the system I first ran it on, and it worked fine.

[Arthalion]

Maybe I should clarify that a little. The OS itself ran fine on a 486 DX2/66, but if you actually wanted to do any real work on it, you needed more. One of the most touted features of Windows 95 was it's ability to handle "True multitasking", but if you ran two programs (like MS word and Excel) at the same time on that setup the computer would slow to a crawl. The 486 processor simply didn't have the horsepower needed to do anything other than run one program at a time without seriously compromising performance.

The Pentium 66, with the same clockspeed and the same amount of memory, was the slowest CPU you could run that was capable of satisfactorily executing all of the new features in Windows 95. Since you could buy a Pentium 133 in July of 1995, I never understood why they didn't just use the Pentium as the recommended processor. Most PC buyers at that point were picking up P75's or P90's anyway (or the 486/100's, which matched the performance of the Pentium 66).

[1Old Pro]

Yep, the recommended configuration for '95 was a 486 DX/66 with 8MB of RAM. You described exactly the system I first ran it on, and it worked fine.

Me too, with a 100meg hard drive. I believe it was a Dell notebook that cost $2000+, UGH, now it's not even worth using for a phonebook.